Comments on: NSA on 4th Amend: Probable Lapse of Memoryhttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/
common sense, shoved up your...Sat, 01 Aug 2015 03:36:12 +0000hourly1By: Another Viet Nam Vethttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-1010288
Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:36:55 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-1010288“Who are you going to salute next for being a patriot, Vietnam Vet?”
Veterans are civilians, Not military. Therefore they don’t salute military. Your snide comment shows that you have never fought for your freedom. Nor does it address the issue being discussed. Maybe your freedom is of no worth to you because it was handed to you on a bloody platter soaked with veterans blood and not yours. Have some respect for those who fought and died for your “right” to speak your mind. Your crusade doesn’t justify disrespect Just as you say the ends don’t justify the means. If it wern’t for our vets there would be no constitution, Web, or any discussion about this so unless you are willing to enlist and do your duty don’t bash our vets!
]]>By: CMChttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-980110
Mon, 08 May 2006 20:33:19 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-980110If my reading of the 4th Amendment is correct, it would appear that We, the People, are secure against all unreasonable searches and seizures, that the government simply cannot violate this Right unless it first issues a Warrant which can only be issued upon probable cause which has to be supported by an Oath or affirmation that indeed there is probable cause to issue the Warrant in order to search or seize any person, property, documents (information) or effects.
So, the ground for unreasonable searches and seizures is simple, if it does not meet the test of probable cause, which determining factor to secure a Warrant under Oath, then it is indeed unreasonable. It would appear that any searches, either under FISA or the NSA are, in the strictest sense, illegal and extra-Constitutional.
]]>By: Hammer of Truthhttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-980090
Mon, 08 May 2006 17:24:09 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-980090Hayden: Same S***, Different Appointee
]]>By: Common Sensehttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-980089
Mon, 08 May 2006 17:08:51 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-980089Early blogoreturns?
]]>By: The Disenfranchised Voterhttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-929118
Mon, 30 Jan 2006 03:14:04 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-929118Perhaps the supporters of the program claiming that probable cause doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t apply to searches should actually read the 4th amendmentÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.“

]]>By: tkchttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-929107
Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:37:43 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-929107Here is what I found on the subject of ‘reasonable searches’.http://pubcrawler.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-is-reasonable.html

In short:
I think that this would tend to support the president’s position on the NSA for two reasons:
1) it would be reasonable to expect the commander in chief to eavesdrop on enemy communications during a time of war.
2) is this quote, “Exceptions to the warrant requirement have multiplied, tending to confine application of the requirement to cases that are exclusively ”criminal” in nature.” Obviously waging war is not a criminal matter.

It may not fit well with liberty but then wars generally do not. If we are going to fight a war, and this war needs to be fought, and won, then we shouldn’t fool around.

]]>By: The Liberty Papershttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-929085
Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:45:35 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-929085Looking Around the Blogosphere
]]>By: The Disenfranchised Voterhttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-929044
Sun, 29 Jan 2006 05:15:44 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-929044Who are you going to salute next for being a patriot, Vietnam Vet?

My guess would be McCarthy…

]]>By: Vietnam Vethttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-928942
Sat, 28 Jan 2006 03:00:45 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-928942General Hayden, I salute you for being willing to put up with the crap thrown at you every day just because are a patriot. Thank you.
]]>By: Curtis Coateshttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-928884
Sat, 28 Jan 2006 01:52:19 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-928884It’s so much worse than most of you think. If you’re willing to risk having your eyes opened, download Constitutional Chaos and have a listen. Judge Andrew Napolitano provides an excellent history lesson on the Fourth Amendment, and then shows how the federal government has been chipping away its protections since the Carter Administration. But nothing compares to what Bush and the GOP-led Congress have done to eviscerate this amendment. If listening to this doesn’t make your blood boil, then you’re never going to get it.
]]>By: Rhamptonhttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-928704
Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:06:00 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-928704James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation argues that the FISA court needs to issue warrants only on the successful matches of the automated programs.

I would argue that every NSA search, must first get FISA Court approval by submitting:
1) a list of the communication nodes to be monitored,
2) an adequately detailed summary of the American citizens and organizations that would be affected, 3) the search terms to be used,
4) the names of all individuals who will be involved in implementing the search and gathering results,
5) suitable documentation that the search was conducted as orderd (search logs)

Thus the FISA court would have the means to limit or reject the NSA’s use of automated searches on a case-by-case basis, while ensuring that records of every search will be reviewed (and kept) by the court to protect against abuse.

]]>By: Erichttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-928649
Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:38:00 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-928649Dale, look at what Knapp points out. Better yet, consider the issue from a strictly contextual point of view. On Constitutional interpretation, I will argue that we can’t have our cake, and eat it too. Many of us will argue that the constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to limit owning weapons in any way due to a strictly textual review of the 2nd Amendment. You can’t make that argument and then turn around and argue for NOT using a strictly textual understanding of the 4th. Well, you can but then you aren’t very consistent. Generally the Supreme Court has been fairly consistent in agreeing that reasonable searches don’t require a warrant. the disagreement, then, is what is reasonable and unreasonable.
]]>By: dalehttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-928613
Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:02:15 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-928613Eric, the Supreme Court hands down many decisions in error. Probably none more so than on the issue of the Fourth Amendment. The Federal Government was never intended to have general police powers and therefore was expected to get warrants on all searches. The grammar of the fourth amendment seems to make this clear. It was also Thomas Cooley’s understanding in his treatise “The General Principles of Constitutional Law” pages 228-232.
]]>By: Nicholas Sarwarkhttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-928610
Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:34:00 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-928610And conservatives are kicking on the Georgetown demostrators for getting a Ben Franklin quote a little wrong?

When the “conservative” response is to criticize a paraphrase of a well-known quote without addressing any of the substance of the matter, that speaks for itself.

]]>By: bachttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-928582
Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:30:19 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-928582“Well the obvious one. In one you are making your own personal decision to get on a commercial plane. And the other you are merely talking on your private phone line.”

Phone lines aren’t private, they are controlled by commercial businesses. Unless you have the money to string your own wire. Most people assume their phone conversations are private because the phone companies respect the right of privacy for people. Otherwise, no one would use phones. Privacy needs trust to work. We trust the postal service to not open our mail. We trust the phone companies not to listen to our conversations. We trust airlines in not revealing the locations we are traveling to.

The government is playing a dangerous game with the people by entering what the people call their right to privacy.

]]>By: RKhttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-928518
Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:42:52 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-928518Some searches, legally, do not require warrants. However, there are certain requirements. Such as in the “in plain sight” rule. Or the officer must have reason to believe that he is acting of necessity (if he hears someone scream from a house, for example). Those are subject to a reasonableness clause.

For all other searches, they require (supposedly) warrants, which is subject to a probable cause requirement. One would think that wiretaps would necessitate a warrant.

Well the obvious one. In one you are making your own personal decision to get on a commercial plane. And the other you are merely talking on your private phone line.

]]>By: Nicholas Sarwarkhttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-928479
Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:53:33 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-928479There are, in modern Fourth Amendment law, some warrantless searches that do not require probable cause, only reasonableness. The most common is known as a Terry stop, where an officer can pat down a person for weapons during a stop. This narrow exception recognizes the exigent need for officer safety, but the officer can’t conduct a full search.

In any event, the NSA argument is bullshit. Mere reasonableness is an exception to the rule, and a limited one at that. The “War on Terror” is not a sufficient exigent circumstance to justify eviscerating the Constitution, especially when there’s not even a scintilla of oversight for the program. Maybe I should modify that. The NSA Inspector General is overseeing the actions of “career professionals within the NSA.”

Don’t you feel safer?

]]>By: Kn@ppsterhttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-928478
Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:47:48 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-928478A number of people — including liberventionist Tim Starr — argue that the “reasonable” criterion for searches and the “probable cause” criterion for warrants are completely unrelated. A look at other amendments sustains the idea that they might be.

– The first amendment covers several different issues (speech, press, religion, assembly).

– RKBA advocates have argued that the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment does not restrict or otherwise impact the proscription against arms restrictions.

-The fifth amendment includes indictments and double jeopardy, and anti-self-incrimination, and takings. Does that mean that they can only take your farm if you’ve been indicted, once, and not been forced to testify against yourself?

On the other hand, the last time I looked, the Constitution included no enumerated wiretap power … at all.

Tom Knapp

]]>By: Don Bangerthttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-928469
Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:12:00 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-928469“Let me put a fine point on this,” Hayden testified. “If, as we are speaking here this afternoon, Osama bin Laden is walking across the bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario, to Niagra Falls, New York, as he gets to the New York side, he is an American person. And my agency must respect his rights against unreasonable search and seizure.”

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) pressed Hayden on this point. “Does NSA spy on the lawful activities of Americans?” she asked.

“No. The answer is we do not,” Hayden said.

The above quote is from the Congressional Record, page S9350[1], dated September 13, 2001. It originally appeared in a Washington Post Magazine article titled TEST OF STRENGTH, July 29, 2001, by Vernon Loeb. (This is cut from a post at my blog[2].)

I’m not comparing TSA searches to NSA eavesdropping, but I am saying that a TSA search, without a warrant, can happen because of the way the 4th Amendment is written. Pulling you over for a broken tail light and then searching your car because the cop thinks you are “acting suspicious” can happen as well, and be upheld by the law. Searching your car with a drug dog during a traffic stop was upheld by the Supremes as well. The Supreme Court has clearly said that many warrantless searches are fine as long as they are “reasonable”.

]]>By: bachttp://hammeroftruth.com/2006/nsa-on-4th-amendment-probable-lapse-of-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-928465
Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:46:08 +0000http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1664#comment-928465Michael Hayden is a general in the Air Force so he has the right to wear the uniform.

The position of Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence is an appointment by the President. It is like a judge being appointed to the supreme court. The President picks a person then the senate must approve. As far as I know, you can not impeach a supreme court judge so there is probably no way to impeach the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.

What is the difference between the TSA searches and the wiretappings? Both searches invade my person. A search into my person, my belongings and my speech should have a probably cause because in the courts I am innocent until proven guilty. This assumes the crime has already happened. The government is assuming you are guilty before a crime has occured. Everyone is a terrorist until searches prove otherwise. This is why prevention can be harmful to freedom.